So now you are claiming that there is no political bias in judicial opinions despite a SCOTUS made up of 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees during DC vs Heller, and for the last 32 years as well as clear Republican dominance of the appellate courts over that same period of time?
The only political bias is what you are attempting to place in there. As for the 32 years, the democrats controlled congress with a clear majority for all but about 6 of those years. The senate has to confirm all Judicial nominees appointed by any president. The senate determines if they will follow the law and the constitution and only approve the positions after they determine that politics will not be a deciding factor in their rulings.
Now, if you are going to claim that the democrats who had either a clear majority or a 50-50 split of power for 26 or more of those years were sleeping on the job and did absolutely nothing to prevent political bias from infiltrating the supreme court, I'm going to say you are wrong. The court is not a political position and the rule of law as well as the constitution reigns supreme. If it were any other way, then Bush would have never been forced to stop the suspension of Habeas Corpus and he would have never been forced to give terrorist captured in a field of battle on foreign soils, trials in US courts. All of the Supreme Court rulings went past political ideology and stayed completely within the bounds of law. You are attempting to inject political bias as if the court is like the senate or house of representatives and it simply is not. I understand that when you are on the losing side of an argument, you will grasp at anything to make it seem like you were screwed instead of justice prevailing, but that type of blind ignorance is stupid.
And then you claim you know more about the law than a supreme court justice?
I see you still haven't read the ruling. Jesus fucking Christ man, I didn't claim I knew more, I claimed (accurately too) that the ruling addresses the concerns of the dissenting opinion and shot them all down as absurd, wrong, or incompetent. If you would have read the opinion, you would have saw how this was done by citing everything under the sun including the development of the language in the constitution by laws of other countries that support the ruling and quash the dissent. All you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and read the prevailing opinion.
And, finally, you are likening judicial OPINIONS to scientific facts?
If you would have gotten off your ass and read the damn opinion, you would see that it presents plenty of facts in it's support. These are facts on record and hold as much weight if not more then scientific facts as I stated. BTW, in science, a fact is an observed action. The facts in the ruling are no less important and follow the same guidelines. It was observed and recorded and later used in the SC Heller case.
These are not rational arguments.
They are not rational only to people on the losing side of the argument who are grasping at anything possible to keep their position while refusing to look at the evidence. That would be you. Read the fucking ruling, show where it's discredited, and then you can claim you were screwed. However, you can't do that, it's cited quite well, it refutes the dissent and uses historically correct and factual information to do so. It's only absurd to you because you are refusing to read it in hopes of retaining some political ideology which simply isn't supported by the facts. You are then attempting to blame those facts on political bias which is nothing more then you injecting it yourself.
I did a little digging. Most states follow the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which has provisions for a check being stale and not usable after 6 months. You're right in that it will vary slightly from state to state and I also saw where most banks used machines to process checks and those machines may not recognize the date and halt payment.
The expiration date idea is a good one but it may end up with the same problem as original checks, the funds could have been re-allocated, the machines can miss the date and expiration date, and your back to the same boat. However, I think the expiration date would give you some better legal recourse if someone does cash it after the expiration date. I can see a situation where the check was lost *in the mail or something, reissued, then cashed at a later date.
When I first found out about the expiration time, that is what happened to me. It was bank in the mid to late 1980's. I wrote a check for a mortgage payment, they claimed it never appeared so I wrote another. After 8 months or so, they found it when doing some cleaning and cashed it causing me to bounce a couple of checks. My bank reversed the funds transfer and credited my account for the bounces and wrote a letter to the businesses that ended up with bounces checks stating it was a data error on their behalf. All of the businesses who did banking at the same bank dropped their bounced check fees and the bank honored the original checks. Two places wanted to rack up $120 in bounced fees which I ended up going to court to get them dropped to the single $25 fee. Evidently, their banks ran the check 3 or 4 times within 20 minutes of the same day and attempted to charge a bounce fee for each time and the stores decided to add their bounce charges each time. They fought it all the way until we got inside a court room then decided to drop it all and charge a single bounce fee that I was stuck paying. One company even refused to accept payment in the amount of the original check and kept threatening to prosecute me but my lawyer said that once they refuse payment, they lost their claim to the debt as well as any fees. I ended up paying them anyways.
I do not understand how EA can call it waste in the first place. A check is only valid for a couple months after it has been written. The money doesn't just disappear if it's not cashed, it goes back to EA's control.
For those who do not compromise their integrity by cashing it, they waste nothing because EA will have the money anyways to spend however they want. Despite there being ethical ramifications to accepting the money, there might also be some legal concerns in some areas as there would need to either be a complete disconnect from the people writing reviews of the game or full disclosure of the payments to comply with some fair trade business laws.
This was a forced apology brought about by an online petition and delivered by members of a government who could otherwise care less.
So I guess I would have to ask, is it really an apology when it isn't sincere? And if so, is it remotely justice by any measure?
I agree with you on justice denied, however, I still do not think it would be justice under these conditions even if the original offenders were present.
Yet again, it's painfully obvious that you still have not read the opinion or followed anything inside it. You cannot blame politics when the fucking ruling cites cases supporting the opinion from the beginning of the country. You are simply attempting to ignore all of that history and attempting to insert political bias into the mix for the sole purpose of acting like the losing side won or is somehow more righteous. The dissenting minority was addressed, pointed to their errors that was backed by law, case law, states, and plenty of other sources including the absurdity of the claims if applied outside of the specific situation.
Now you can be a sore loser claiming everyone's out to get you but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. If anything the dissent was injecting politics with their living document doctrine that attempts to change the constitution while bypassing the entire amendment process. Guess what, that's not constitutional and it's nothing more then a political bias that you are accusing the other side of.
I base my opinion that the ruling was correct in what the actual ruling said. This has nothing to do with politics as you are attempting to claim. Find something in the ruling that is false and you will have a leg to stand on. You can't and if you actually read the ruling, you would know it has been supported in several aspects of the government or the states as well as law since the beginning of our country and before. You cannot simply close your eyes to that and expect any credibility by claiming the dissent is more valid then the ruling and that politics is the only reason. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, just as they were wrong.
Hell, with you acting like this, I would expect you to claim Science has never been right about anything and creationism is the only thing we need to know. You do know how to use logic don't you? I know your google finger is broken but fuck, you should at least make an attempt to not remain ignorant.
You can ask for records of maintenance to see if the camera was neglected (and therefore not reliable). Also I think you forget that human witnesses are LESS reliable than cameras. I've worked with retail store security guards who freely admit they lie in court: "No I didn't see the man take the jeans, but I told the court I did, so he was found guilty." That's how innocent people end-up in jail.
I think you are confusing the context of the issue. This isn't about someone being caught doing something wrong and someone lieing to make it stick. This is more like you looking through security footage and saying this person done something that other people are allowed to do but I'm calling it theft right now when your own inventory doesn't show anything missing.
There is a difference between someone already being accused of something then the entire lie being the accusation.
As for requesting the maintenance records and so on of the cameras, that's easier said then done and you still have to get a lawyer and an expert witness to critique it. You on your own cannot be effective at it without those. The different between you working department store security and being a cop is often the strength of your charactor and the honesty you put forth. I can understand why you think everyone lies, I can also understand why you are not a cop.
Cameras may be out of adjustment but they always tell the "truth" of what they saw. Human witnesses don't. They lie; they forget; they embellish or get confused. Humans are extremely unreliable. I'd rather rely on a camera which I can invalidate as "not maintained and unreliable", rather then a human who can flatout lie and there's no way for me to prove they are lying.
actually, no they do not. They do not tell anything. They show events that happened and that's it. Nothing more and nothing else. People explain what they saw and people are supposed to interpret what the images in the cameras mean. When the cameras take a picture of someone turning right on red and issue a citation for running a red light, you have no choice but to spend money to defend against it. The citation shouldn't have been written in the first place. If a live officer saw you do some legal driving maneuver, they wouldn't have cited you. now cops can make mistakes and issue a citation to the wrong person, but that's not institutionalize like a camera that cites everyone making legal turns.
So naive. I've seen many cases where real officers have ticketed people even though they did nothing wrong, so really there's no difference in accuracy between the real v. the electronic cop.
No, it's not naive, it's just the way it is. Just because you think a cop gave someone a ticket for doing nothing doesn't mean it happened. It can happen, but can is not the same as did. The vast majority of cops are honest. Some aren't and some might be incompetent. However, it's far easier to prove someone who interacts with others on a daily basis as incompetent or dishonest. As for the camera, you have to impute the integrity of people completely removed from the actions in order to demonstrate wrong doing.
Either way, you are far better off with a live person who is aware of the situation then a camera that constantly gets things wrong.
Yes that's what the courts are for. And you can get an organization like the ACLU or the AAA to back you, as they did when they sued Washington D.C. on behalf of other false-ticketed drivers. And then the cameras were fixed, so the problem no longer exists but the enforcement of the red-light laws is still there to catch the violators.
Bullshit. The practical reality of the ACLU or AAA picking up your case for you is almost non-existent. Neither organization will involve itself in more then 1-2 percent of all traffic cases in the country. They simply do no have the manpower or presence to do more. AAA's lewgal defense insurance generally just say 'your busted' and makes sure the fine was paid.
If you are going to rely on that, then prepare to have your life ruined while waiting for you knight in shining armor to not show up. Bottom line is that it takes money to defend yourself and they know it. Hell, any lawyer will tell you to just pay the fine unless jail time is involved, their services will cost more then the fine and court costs by a factor of at least 5 if not more. And that's not even considering filing motions for evidence or expert witnesses to prove your case. Hell, it costs people between $500-$1000 just to file bankruptcy.
Now, I'm not saying it can't be fought, it just can't be fought by the majority of people who are living paycheck to paycheck, out of work, or are mortgaged to the hilt attempting to live a normal life.
In contrast YOUR answer if to have red lights that are not monitored (either by real cops or electronic cops), and thus people are ripping through red lights and endangering other drivers. This is definitely Not a solution. Non-enforcement of the laws is never a good idea.
I never said that. Do not put words in my mouth. I said a live officer is better then a camera. Obviously, if there is a problem at an intersection, that intersection needs to be monitored by a real person and maybe the intersection needs to be reconsidered for it's design. There is a long history of traffic cameras going in and the cities shortening the yellow lights making the intersection more dangerous. They are revenue generators that are intended to do what the op was talking about, citing someone for a legal move because they know it's cheaper to pay then to fight. With a live person, you are pulled over the day it happened and have the opportunity to document the incident while it's still fresh in your head instead of getting a ticket on some random date a month or two later and having to distinguish between when you might not have even been driving the car at the time.
You may think that is appropriate, but I think if you do, you are a fool and will get bitten by it.
Sure you can confront this witness. The prosecutor will be overjoyed to play the video recording in front of the jury. What you're objecting to is this witness actually being reliable.
Confronting any witness is about the reliability of their statement. The problem is, you cannot ask a camera if it's sensors were off. You can't ask a camera if it appeared that the person was going faster then the speed limit (which would indicate it's sensors being off), you can't ask a camera why it issued you a citation for a legal turn on red. But worst of all, you have to show up to court and miss work, pay for a defense, and hope the judge doesn't ignore everything you say. And yes, they can forgo jury trials for traffic offenses, I tried, was denied, appealed and told I couldn't, then unsuccessfully sued the city over a cop who wrote me a bogus ticket once.
If a live person was there, the chances of getting a citation for a legal driving maneuver would have been non-existent. Going to court would have not been an issue, expecting a judge, or an untrained mayor in some jurisdictions to rely on common sense and the law wouldn't be an issue. Hell, it took court battles in some states that went all the way to the state supreme courts in order to get the source code for breathalyzer machines that has been the source of countless DUI convictions. We have a right to face out accusers for a reason, machines do not supplant that and it's almost impossible to do so with machines.
I think your missing the point. The real officer wouldn't have cited him in the first place. The electronic cop makes him go to court to contest a witness that he can't even confront, and your answer is to gather enough money up to sue the city for harassment from an electronics policeman who you still can not confront.
Yea, he has options, more so if he was rich. Right and wrong are often obvious yet they do not apply evenly to everyone. This unevenness gets more skewed the further apart the income scale goes.
I suggest you read that pdf you linked to more carefully:
Although most federal circuits addressing this issue have held that expressive materials are not exempt from the border search exception,forceful countervailing arguments have been made. For example, in his dissent in Seljan, Judge Alex Kozinski argued that the Fourth Amendment provides heightened protections for expressive materials at the border.143 He made two arguments to support this proposition. The first is based on the Fourth Amendmentâ(TM)s text, which contains a specific prohibition against the unreasonable search and seizure of âoepapers.â Judge Kozinski argued that this specific prohibition signals the Framersâ(TM) desire to insulate expressive content, and the personal thoughts contained therein, from unnecessary government search.
Do you actually know what dissent means? It means that some judge didn't agree with the ruling that set precedence and stated why. They lost the case. In other words, Dissent is little more then sore losers spouting off because the already did the important thing. I do not know why you seem to insist that the dissent is the only thing that matters, it's like saying the losing guy in the case won when they didn't.
BTW, the PDF I linked to specifically said Mail was open, I copied that portion of my statement directly from it.
Are you REALLY using wiki as an academic source to claim 'historically accurate information'? Ridiculous. No academic institution in the United States accepts wiki. I think that's what your supposed 'knowledge' boils down to. You can read wiki and google things. For your information, it was a trick question, and you fell, hook, line, and sinker. They did NOT make any exception to the 4th amendment. They ruled that border searches were 'reasonable'. There is a distinct difference, but subtleties are obviously not your strong point.
Fuck dude, Wiki was the first reference that I found. It's bad enough that I have to spend all my time educating your sorry ass, now your wanting specific sites to be linked from. Here is a hint, try fucking Google and find out for yourself. Fuck man, your too damn lazy to do a search on the subject and want to bash wiki because of it. Grow the fuck up.
As for the reasonableness, now your just attempting to play semantics once you know you have lost. Of course the courts said it was reasonable and consistent with the fourth amendment at the border. What makes it an exception is that it isn't reasonable or consistent with the fourth under any other circumstances (with the border being define around the border and ports of enter and not just at the border). You just spent the better part of two posts attempting to claim the fourth trumped border searches and now you think you found a way to gracefully admit defeat.
Why should I? I support Justice Stephen's dissent and reject Scalia's idiocy. The only reason Scalia's side prevailed is because the current iteration of the Supreme Court is obviously slanted to the right. It is pretty easy to reverse a 5-4 ruling. If the balance of the SCOTUS shifts left, then guess what? There's a good chance my view becomes the law.
How about because if you do not, then you are completely full of shit and supporting something only because you want to with nothing based in reality. As I said before, Scalia's opinion addressed and put to rest while showing the absurdity of Stephen's activist claims and he cited not only dictionaries, legal resources, literary sources, state constitutions, drafts of the 2cnd amendment, but also personal letters between drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights, historical context, and foreign laws that we based out legal system from. You can ignore all that and support someone for no other reason then you want to, but you are the idiot, not anyone else.
I don't understand your scenario. How is publishing an invention into the public domain going to be more limited in scope than a patent would be? How is the public domain prior art going to protect for unlimited exploitation any less than the patent would be?
If you have a patent and I improve on the concept, I can get a patent for my improvements but I will still rely on your patent in order to market them. If you give up your patent and place it into the public domain, under the current system, I can just use my patent without regard to your wishes. If you retain your patent and offer a license to anyone under the condition their use will be open or licenses back in a similar way, you have negated my ability to lock in my improvements.
If anything, the public domain can be more broadly illustrative than the patent would be. If these orgs dedicated their activity to cultivating the public domain, advising publishers into it for quality documentation the way they now do patents, the public domain would be easily invoked to dismiss any patent claim. Possibly (if the PTO were reformed to be a legit office) even easily used by patent examiners to nip invalid patents in the bud - rather than wait for a court, and then an appeals court, to determine the exclusions.
Lets look at a hypothetical here. Imagine you invented Email and placed the patent into the public domain. Now when Email was first used, it was used with text readers and such. Now, I come along, take your Email Idea and create a little visual program for retrieving and displaying it in a GUI. Suppose they actually accepted software patents back then and I beat the RFC's for it to market. Now, I can improve on your email Idea and patent my improvements. Imagine what the internet would be like if MS just now got outlook and outlook express going. Imagine if there was never any Netscape mail or AOl until 2003 because I had a 20 year lock in on visual displays of email in GUIs.
Now, if you kept your patent on the Email, my patent would be useless without paying you a royalty, you could then use that leverage to require certain things from me like making my application free for non-profit use or something. Perhaps you would require me to put the concept under some open license and make my money from supporting the applications. Without your patent, you have no leverage over me.
Public domain cannot be used to exclude implementation. Otherwise it has all the properties that a patent for defending implementation rights by anyone who wants them. Perhaps with the exception of a registry as accessible as the PTO library. But Google goes a long way towards that for the public domain, and one of these orgs could go the rest of the way by indexing the public prior art, perhaps even better than the PTO's patent registry.
Your right, and I'm not attempting to claim it does. On the contrary, the lack of control would allow me to take a portion, if not all of the public domain items and incorporate them into my patented process or device and lock all my improvements away from everyone else. The control you give up when giving up a patent can be useful if others want to be pricks.
And that kind of reversed momentum in the patent industry could enable reforming the patent industry. Once there's a sizeable interest in registering in the public domain rather than patents, there will be less unified defense of patents. And then the government can find alternatives to the patent industry for bribes and other lobbying utilities when redefining patents. Preferably to solely physical devices with a working model, solely for its unique mechanism (not its general purpose or result), for some time short enough for it to recoup its development investment but not long enough to exclude diversity of vendors for most of its useful market lifecycle. In other words, back to the minimal compromise n
I can see when it's an actual machine or complete device that is patented and it's actually brought to market, how a patent can be useful in encouraging someone to do it. But software patents, ideas that never make it to a market, they are just rubbish through and though.
Please don't take my observation as a support for patents either, I just can see a few rare situations where they might be useful.
Oh, I agree it's a faulty design. I was hoping to illustrate some of the patchworks stupidity associated with it. The reactor facility was also designed without a fail safe in which the reaction simply increases without the control rods until all the fuel is used up. Another accident which didn't result in a meltdown lead them to notice the design flaws which caused the Graphite to be used in the first place.
I think the current idea of military used it to get more supplies into combat faster. If the soldier can use one of these to carry an extra 100lbs of equipment, plus armor, then his entire range of readiness just increased enormously.
The idea would be to send supplies into positions already under attack or to get the supplies close to the mission objective and then take what they need while stashing the exoskeleton for future retrieval. Going into combat is sometimes a compromise between necessary gear to accomplish the mission as well as necessary gear to survive the mission. The physical toll exerted on the soldier attempting to do both is enormous in a lot of cases, especially if they have to walk several miles into position. If you can reduce the physical wear and tear on a soldier to just the last 500 yards, they can carry enough provisions to get the job done as well as return home safely.
Nah, it would be much easier to just automate the suits and use the soldiers to pilot them from 10,000 miles away like we do with most of the UAV's. In this situation, you would only need one soldier per suit instead of another soldier to control a couple of them.
You would also have the added benefit of the 200lbs of human flesh being replaced by weapons systems and ammunition to extend the range and battle readiness of the suits. Perhaps beefing up the armor quite a bit and placing a live human in a couple could give a better situational awareness of the battlefield but there isn't much lacking from some of the advanced systems in use today. A pair of microphones and a 360 degree camera can pinpoint the location of most gun positions once they fire. Attach a range finder or some radar with ranging capabilities, and the robot suit could accurately engage the enemy once discovered with pretty good accuracy. And the best part, the soldier can go home and kiss the kids good night before slapping the ol' lady on the ass when going to bed.
Those decades would most likely be the from the end of WWII.
Japan was forbidden to raise a military until some time around 2000 or so. They even caught a bunch of flack for their police being trained in paramilitary tactics in the late 80's and 90's. This set up is also one of the biggest reasons the US is heavily invested in Japan, while they were defenseless (could have limited defense forces but nothing like what would be needed to secure against China of any of it's neighbors), the US and some European countries stepped in with defense support augmentation. (an approach I think we probably should have taken with Iraq after the first gulf war while they were disarming).
The reasons for that image has largely lapsed as the requirements have run their length of time but I think Japan's constitution that was created after WWII also limit's their offensive military capabilities too. I remember some issues cropping up during the first gulf war where their constitution prohibited even sharing in the monetary expense of it.
First off, the fourth amendment border search exemption does not include correspondence, and only applies to people or cargo coming into the country, which was the reason for my pretzel logic comment.
I call BS. I think you pulled that out of your ass. Specifically established exceptions to the 4th amendment did not enter into law until the Rehnquist court. Please cite specifically any other legislation or rulings that establish exceptions. I'm thinking you can't.
What is it with you and your inane lack of ability to do the slightest bit of searching for historically correct information. Now listen to me carefully, it's not hard to do a google search and you should at least attempt to find out if you are wrong before showing the world that you are.
FYI, the word regulated is the inflected form of regulate.
The phrase isn't regulate or regulated. It's "well regulated" (and you can add militia to it too), it's a prefatory clause, and it has the meaning I said. It's explained competently in the DC Heller case. I suggest you spend a few minute reading it before charging at windmills again.
When it comes to the DC gun case, Justice Stephens pretty much tore the ruling opinion apart with his dissenting opinion. Remember, this was a contested ruling. The right wing activists won 5-4.
Actually, no he didn't. I suggest you actually read it all, including all the references and citations. Justice SCALIA,addressed Justice Stephens dissent and actually supported his rejection of those arguments with citations not only in law, but state constitutions, english laws, and understood dictionaries as well as literature at the time the amendment was created. He even compared Justice Stephens' dissent with other provisions in the constitution which specifically mention a right held by the people and pointed to the absurdity of the clause if it were interpreted the same way. This isn't a left right political decision and it isn't some activist decision. You have been wrong about almost everything else and you are wrong here too. Again, read the fucking decision- all of it.
At the very least, no matter how much you say you think you know about civics and the law, I'm going to take a supreme court justices word over yours every time.
And Justice SCALIA, addressed those words competently and even showed how incompetent that analysis is when compared to other constitutional provisions and matters of law. Like I said, read the entire fucking opinion.
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action as president concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.
He didn't do it of his own free will, and his past is competently indicative of his future. Or are you going to claim he was a liar until now that you somehow find one instance that he was pushed into politically advantageous?
Just ask you, you'll tell me, huh? What a laugh. You accuse ME of not paying attention that's a laugh and a half. Here is the video you linked to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2V
Putting something in the public domain can actually be worse then using a patent. This is because the patent or tech will be limited in scope and offshoots can and most likely will be patented by others looking to cash in. With the patent, a licensing royalty or perhaps a perpetual license can be established for all derivative patents in the same light.
It's actually better to abolish patents then anything, but as long as the game stands, then having a responsible company or organization hold them can be better then just opening them up.
Precedence for that was set by Abraham Lincoln at the end of the civil war. I'm not exactly sure what your attempting to get at, but I didn't bring Habeas Corpus up. It's all pointless because the US supreme court ruled that it was used improperly and Habeas Corpus couldn't be suspended except for in specific cases which wasn't met.
As far as precedence goes in a legal sense, nothing has changed from the constitution's wording.
You realize why they used Graphite coated control rods in Chernobyl don't you?
It's because the heat caused stress on the alignment tubes and the control rods were jamming. Instead of reinforcing them or re-engineering them, the Graphite acted as a lubricant which allowed the control rods to be inserted.
Not really sure that the Valdez is a valid example. The captain was the one drinking, not the pilot navigating the vessel and the captain was in his quarters which is common on ships. Alcohol wasn't the cause, it was the scape goat.
This isn't because I supported either Bush or Obama, it's because of what happened, who it happened to, and the reasons for it happening. Leaders need to do things that might not be popular sometimes. It wouldn't matter who did it, if the facts are the same, then it would be the same.
Now do not assume that I was defending the warantless wiretaps. I was simply keeping them in the proper context. If I was defending the actions, I would have said that I believed the office of the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief to gather battlefield intelligence no matter who was sitting in the chair just as all presidents before now has had and out to use. You certainly wouldn't expect the any administration to get a warrant to intercept or spy on invading forces operating inside the US, there is little difference between that and terrorist groups planning attacks in the US or gaining support to defeat US forces in foreign lands.
You still did not show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. Fail.
The fucking people who wrote the fourth amendment as well as the supreme court which is charged with interpreting conflicts decided it didn't cover international correspondence. The fist congress of the United States of America passed a law with almost unanimous approval creating border searches. If the people who wrote the fourth, if the people who interpret the fourth, and if everyone else who pays attention to history do not find a conflict with it, then it's more then likely that you are the one who is misunderstanding the situation. Like I said, you should pay attention to a little history. Then you won't be failing when attempting to claim others failed.
Just because one administration or iteration of the supreme court makes a decision contrary to the constitution, contrary to their oaths of office, does not make that decision right.
It was the same people who wrote the constitution and signed or ratified it who did this. It isn't just one administration or one iteration of a court, it's something that has been here since the very first year our country has existed and used by all administrations since Washington.
Especially our current crooked court. Scalia is a neoconservative activist judge. Slappy Thomas is his ignorant bitch. These assholes APPOINTED a president while stating "counting the votes would hurt petitioner Bush". The Rehnquist Court was a complete fucking joke and a black spot on our great country. Every decision made by that court is suspect. While Roberts is probably better, it is not by much.
Wow, just wow. You are still fabricating and trotting that old and refuted and tired piece of shit line around. You seem like you do not pay attention to details that you do not want to see. Perhaps you should go find this thing called a book. Most counties have things called libraries with sections in the called reference and non-fiction. There you can find books under the subject of history and you can educate yourself a little so you don't look dumber the some random dumb ass.
Speaking of fail, you just showed how far you will go to fail.
Look up the word regulate. Nowhere in that definition does it mention the ability to shoot straight.
The constitution doesn't contain the word regulate. It contains the word regulated and in the DC gun control case, the ruling referenced that specific definition several times. I do not understand why you haven't even read the ruling yet think you are intelligent enough to make blatantly false statements about it which was contained in the ruling. Perhaps if you hang around ignorant people, you can appear smart stating your falsehoods, but we all have at least an Average intelligence here and you will be called on it.
You are using fucking tortured pretzel logic that anyone with an independent brain can see through. I am sorry you are such an ignorant sheep that needs to be told how it is and what to do.
Oh, Moving away from facts and logic and into insults. That must be some strong position you are standing on when you need to attempt to insult someone to push it. I bet you mom is really proud of you right now.
And I love how you assholes somehow think you can read Obama's mind and tell us what he's thinking and what he's going to do.
Again with the extremely strong stand. Here is a hint, no one claims to be reading Obama's mind, all we can do is take his own words, the words of people he surrounds himself with, and form an opinion from there. So far, the facts and his own words show he is anti-gun. I looked and could not find one pro gun rights statement recorded in any newspaper, speech he's made, or campaign lit
Slashdot Mirror
It's like a woman, the more you try to understand, the more crazy and disappointed you will be in the end.
You have people here who think down modding means "I don't agree with your post" and that agreement is never subject to reality.
The only political bias is what you are attempting to place in there. As for the 32 years, the democrats controlled congress with a clear majority for all but about 6 of those years. The senate has to confirm all Judicial nominees appointed by any president. The senate determines if they will follow the law and the constitution and only approve the positions after they determine that politics will not be a deciding factor in their rulings.
Now, if you are going to claim that the democrats who had either a clear majority or a 50-50 split of power for 26 or more of those years were sleeping on the job and did absolutely nothing to prevent political bias from infiltrating the supreme court, I'm going to say you are wrong. The court is not a political position and the rule of law as well as the constitution reigns supreme. If it were any other way, then Bush would have never been forced to stop the suspension of Habeas Corpus and he would have never been forced to give terrorist captured in a field of battle on foreign soils, trials in US courts. All of the Supreme Court rulings went past political ideology and stayed completely within the bounds of law. You are attempting to inject political bias as if the court is like the senate or house of representatives and it simply is not. I understand that when you are on the losing side of an argument, you will grasp at anything to make it seem like you were screwed instead of justice prevailing, but that type of blind ignorance is stupid.
I see you still haven't read the ruling. Jesus fucking Christ man, I didn't claim I knew more, I claimed (accurately too) that the ruling addresses the concerns of the dissenting opinion and shot them all down as absurd, wrong, or incompetent. If you would have read the opinion, you would have saw how this was done by citing everything under the sun including the development of the language in the constitution by laws of other countries that support the ruling and quash the dissent. All you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and read the prevailing opinion.
If you would have gotten off your ass and read the damn opinion, you would see that it presents plenty of facts in it's support. These are facts on record and hold as much weight if not more then scientific facts as I stated. BTW, in science, a fact is an observed action. The facts in the ruling are no less important and follow the same guidelines. It was observed and recorded and later used in the SC Heller case.
They are not rational only to people on the losing side of the argument who are grasping at anything possible to keep their position while refusing to look at the evidence. That would be you. Read the fucking ruling, show where it's discredited, and then you can claim you were screwed. However, you can't do that, it's cited quite well, it refutes the dissent and uses historically correct and factual information to do so. It's only absurd to you because you are refusing to read it in hopes of retaining some political ideology which simply isn't supported by the facts. You are then attempting to blame those facts on political bias which is nothing more then you injecting it yourself.
I did a little digging. Most states follow the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which has provisions for a check being stale and not usable after 6 months. You're right in that it will vary slightly from state to state and I also saw where most banks used machines to process checks and those machines may not recognize the date and halt payment.
The expiration date idea is a good one but it may end up with the same problem as original checks, the funds could have been re-allocated, the machines can miss the date and expiration date, and your back to the same boat. However, I think the expiration date would give you some better legal recourse if someone does cash it after the expiration date. I can see a situation where the check was lost *in the mail or something, reissued, then cashed at a later date.
When I first found out about the expiration time, that is what happened to me. It was bank in the mid to late 1980's. I wrote a check for a mortgage payment, they claimed it never appeared so I wrote another. After 8 months or so, they found it when doing some cleaning and cashed it causing me to bounce a couple of checks. My bank reversed the funds transfer and credited my account for the bounces and wrote a letter to the businesses that ended up with bounces checks stating it was a data error on their behalf. All of the businesses who did banking at the same bank dropped their bounced check fees and the bank honored the original checks. Two places wanted to rack up $120 in bounced fees which I ended up going to court to get them dropped to the single $25 fee. Evidently, their banks ran the check 3 or 4 times within 20 minutes of the same day and attempted to charge a bounce fee for each time and the stores decided to add their bounce charges each time. They fought it all the way until we got inside a court room then decided to drop it all and charge a single bounce fee that I was stuck paying. One company even refused to accept payment in the amount of the original check and kept threatening to prosecute me but my lawyer said that once they refuse payment, they lost their claim to the debt as well as any fees. I ended up paying them anyways.
I do not understand how EA can call it waste in the first place. A check is only valid for a couple months after it has been written. The money doesn't just disappear if it's not cashed, it goes back to EA's control.
For those who do not compromise their integrity by cashing it, they waste nothing because EA will have the money anyways to spend however they want. Despite there being ethical ramifications to accepting the money, there might also be some legal concerns in some areas as there would need to either be a complete disconnect from the people writing reviews of the game or full disclosure of the payments to comply with some fair trade business laws.
This was a forced apology brought about by an online petition and delivered by members of a government who could otherwise care less.
So I guess I would have to ask, is it really an apology when it isn't sincere? And if so, is it remotely justice by any measure?
I agree with you on justice denied, however, I still do not think it would be justice under these conditions even if the original offenders were present.
Yet again, it's painfully obvious that you still have not read the opinion or followed anything inside it. You cannot blame politics when the fucking ruling cites cases supporting the opinion from the beginning of the country. You are simply attempting to ignore all of that history and attempting to insert political bias into the mix for the sole purpose of acting like the losing side won or is somehow more righteous. The dissenting minority was addressed, pointed to their errors that was backed by law, case law, states, and plenty of other sources including the absurdity of the claims if applied outside of the specific situation.
Now you can be a sore loser claiming everyone's out to get you but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. If anything the dissent was injecting politics with their living document doctrine that attempts to change the constitution while bypassing the entire amendment process. Guess what, that's not constitutional and it's nothing more then a political bias that you are accusing the other side of.
I base my opinion that the ruling was correct in what the actual ruling said. This has nothing to do with politics as you are attempting to claim. Find something in the ruling that is false and you will have a leg to stand on. You can't and if you actually read the ruling, you would know it has been supported in several aspects of the government or the states as well as law since the beginning of our country and before. You cannot simply close your eyes to that and expect any credibility by claiming the dissent is more valid then the ruling and that politics is the only reason. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, just as they were wrong.
Hell, with you acting like this, I would expect you to claim Science has never been right about anything and creationism is the only thing we need to know. You do know how to use logic don't you? I know your google finger is broken but fuck, you should at least make an attempt to not remain ignorant.
I think you are confusing the context of the issue. This isn't about someone being caught doing something wrong and someone lieing to make it stick. This is more like you looking through security footage and saying this person done something that other people are allowed to do but I'm calling it theft right now when your own inventory doesn't show anything missing.
There is a difference between someone already being accused of something then the entire lie being the accusation.
As for requesting the maintenance records and so on of the cameras, that's easier said then done and you still have to get a lawyer and an expert witness to critique it. You on your own cannot be effective at it without those. The different between you working department store security and being a cop is often the strength of your charactor and the honesty you put forth. I can understand why you think everyone lies, I can also understand why you are not a cop.
actually, no they do not. They do not tell anything. They show events that happened and that's it. Nothing more and nothing else. People explain what they saw and people are supposed to interpret what the images in the cameras mean. When the cameras take a picture of someone turning right on red and issue a citation for running a red light, you have no choice but to spend money to defend against it. The citation shouldn't have been written in the first place. If a live officer saw you do some legal driving maneuver, they wouldn't have cited you. now cops can make mistakes and issue a citation to the wrong person, but that's not institutionalize like a camera that cites everyone making legal turns.
No, it's not naive, it's just the way it is. Just because you think a cop gave someone a ticket for doing nothing doesn't mean it happened. It can happen, but can is not the same as did. The vast majority of cops are honest. Some aren't and some might be incompetent. However, it's far easier to prove someone who interacts with others on a daily basis as incompetent or dishonest. As for the camera, you have to impute the integrity of people completely removed from the actions in order to demonstrate wrong doing.
Either way, you are far better off with a live person who is aware of the situation then a camera that constantly gets things wrong.
Bullshit. The practical reality of the ACLU or AAA picking up your case for you is almost non-existent. Neither organization will involve itself in more then 1-2 percent of all traffic cases in the country. They simply do no have the manpower or presence to do more. AAA's lewgal defense insurance generally just say 'your busted' and makes sure the fine was paid.
If you are going to rely on that, then prepare to have your life ruined while waiting for you knight in shining armor to not show up. Bottom line is that it takes money to defend yourself and they know it. Hell, any lawyer will tell you to just pay the fine unless jail time is involved, their services will cost more then the fine and court costs by a factor of at least 5 if not more. And that's not even considering filing motions for evidence or expert witnesses to prove your case. Hell, it costs people between $500-$1000 just to file bankruptcy.
Now, I'm not saying it can't be fought, it just can't be fought by the majority of people who are living paycheck to paycheck, out of work, or are mortgaged to the hilt attempting to live a normal life.
I never said that. Do not put words in my mouth. I said a live officer is better then a camera. Obviously, if there is a problem at an intersection, that intersection needs to be monitored by a real person and maybe the intersection needs to be reconsidered for it's design. There is a long history of traffic cameras going in and the cities shortening the yellow lights making the intersection more dangerous. They are revenue generators that are intended to do what the op was talking about, citing someone for a legal move because they know it's cheaper to pay then to fight. With a live person, you are pulled over the day it happened and have the opportunity to document the incident while it's still fresh in your head instead of getting a ticket on some random date a month or two later and having to distinguish between when you might not have even been driving the car at the time.
You may think that is appropriate, but I think if you do, you are a fool and will get bitten by it.
Confronting any witness is about the reliability of their statement. The problem is, you cannot ask a camera if it's sensors were off. You can't ask a camera if it appeared that the person was going faster then the speed limit (which would indicate it's sensors being off), you can't ask a camera why it issued you a citation for a legal turn on red. But worst of all, you have to show up to court and miss work, pay for a defense, and hope the judge doesn't ignore everything you say. And yes, they can forgo jury trials for traffic offenses, I tried, was denied, appealed and told I couldn't, then unsuccessfully sued the city over a cop who wrote me a bogus ticket once.
If a live person was there, the chances of getting a citation for a legal driving maneuver would have been non-existent. Going to court would have not been an issue, expecting a judge, or an untrained mayor in some jurisdictions to rely on common sense and the law wouldn't be an issue. Hell, it took court battles in some states that went all the way to the state supreme courts in order to get the source code for breathalyzer machines that has been the source of countless DUI convictions. We have a right to face out accusers for a reason, machines do not supplant that and it's almost impossible to do so with machines.
I think your missing the point. The real officer wouldn't have cited him in the first place. The electronic cop makes him go to court to contest a witness that he can't even confront, and your answer is to gather enough money up to sue the city for harassment from an electronics policeman who you still can not confront.
Yea, he has options, more so if he was rich. Right and wrong are often obvious yet they do not apply evenly to everyone. This unevenness gets more skewed the further apart the income scale goes.
Do you actually know what dissent means? It means that some judge didn't agree with the ruling that set precedence and stated why. They lost the case. In other words, Dissent is little more then sore losers spouting off because the already did the important thing. I do not know why you seem to insist that the dissent is the only thing that matters, it's like saying the losing guy in the case won when they didn't.
BTW, the PDF I linked to specifically said Mail was open, I copied that portion of my statement directly from it.
Fuck dude, Wiki was the first reference that I found. It's bad enough that I have to spend all my time educating your sorry ass, now your wanting specific sites to be linked from. Here is a hint, try fucking Google and find out for yourself. Fuck man, your too damn lazy to do a search on the subject and want to bash wiki because of it. Grow the fuck up.
As for the reasonableness, now your just attempting to play semantics once you know you have lost. Of course the courts said it was reasonable and consistent with the fourth amendment at the border. What makes it an exception is that it isn't reasonable or consistent with the fourth under any other circumstances (with the border being define around the border and ports of enter and not just at the border). You just spent the better part of two posts attempting to claim the fourth trumped border searches and now you think you found a way to gracefully admit defeat.
How about because if you do not, then you are completely full of shit and supporting something only because you want to with nothing based in reality. As I said before, Scalia's opinion addressed and put to rest while showing the absurdity of Stephen's activist claims and he cited not only dictionaries, legal resources, literary sources, state constitutions, drafts of the 2cnd amendment, but also personal letters between drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights, historical context, and foreign laws that we based out legal system from. You can ignore all that and support someone for no other reason then you want to, but you are the idiot, not anyone else.
If you have a patent and I improve on the concept, I can get a patent for my improvements but I will still rely on your patent in order to market them. If you give up your patent and place it into the public domain, under the current system, I can just use my patent without regard to your wishes. If you retain your patent and offer a license to anyone under the condition their use will be open or licenses back in a similar way, you have negated my ability to lock in my improvements.
Lets look at a hypothetical here. Imagine you invented Email and placed the patent into the public domain. Now when Email was first used, it was used with text readers and such. Now, I come along, take your Email Idea and create a little visual program for retrieving and displaying it in a GUI. Suppose they actually accepted software patents back then and I beat the RFC's for it to market. Now, I can improve on your email Idea and patent my improvements. Imagine what the internet would be like if MS just now got outlook and outlook express going. Imagine if there was never any Netscape mail or AOl until 2003 because I had a 20 year lock in on visual displays of email in GUIs.
Now, if you kept your patent on the Email, my patent would be useless without paying you a royalty, you could then use that leverage to require certain things from me like making my application free for non-profit use or something. Perhaps you would require me to put the concept under some open license and make my money from supporting the applications. Without your patent, you have no leverage over me.
Your right, and I'm not attempting to claim it does. On the contrary, the lack of control would allow me to take a portion, if not all of the public domain items and incorporate them into my patented process or device and lock all my improvements away from everyone else. The control you give up when giving up a patent can be useful if others want to be pricks.
I can see when it's an actual machine or complete device that is patented and it's actually brought to market, how a patent can be useful in encouraging someone to do it. But software patents, ideas that never make it to a market, they are just rubbish through and though.
Please don't take my observation as a support for patents either, I just can see a few rare situations where they might be useful.
Oh, I agree it's a faulty design. I was hoping to illustrate some of the patchworks stupidity associated with it. The reactor facility was also designed without a fail safe in which the reaction simply increases without the control rods until all the fuel is used up. Another accident which didn't result in a meltdown lead them to notice the design flaws which caused the Graphite to be used in the first place.
I think the current idea of military used it to get more supplies into combat faster. If the soldier can use one of these to carry an extra 100lbs of equipment, plus armor, then his entire range of readiness just increased enormously.
The idea would be to send supplies into positions already under attack or to get the supplies close to the mission objective and then take what they need while stashing the exoskeleton for future retrieval. Going into combat is sometimes a compromise between necessary gear to accomplish the mission as well as necessary gear to survive the mission. The physical toll exerted on the soldier attempting to do both is enormous in a lot of cases, especially if they have to walk several miles into position. If you can reduce the physical wear and tear on a soldier to just the last 500 yards, they can carry enough provisions to get the job done as well as return home safely.
Nah, it would be much easier to just automate the suits and use the soldiers to pilot them from 10,000 miles away like we do with most of the UAV's. In this situation, you would only need one soldier per suit instead of another soldier to control a couple of them.
You would also have the added benefit of the 200lbs of human flesh being replaced by weapons systems and ammunition to extend the range and battle readiness of the suits. Perhaps beefing up the armor quite a bit and placing a live human in a couple could give a better situational awareness of the battlefield but there isn't much lacking from some of the advanced systems in use today. A pair of microphones and a 360 degree camera can pinpoint the location of most gun positions once they fire. Attach a range finder or some radar with ranging capabilities, and the robot suit could accurately engage the enemy once discovered with pretty good accuracy. And the best part, the soldier can go home and kiss the kids good night before slapping the ol' lady on the ass when going to bed.
Those decades would most likely be the from the end of WWII.
Japan was forbidden to raise a military until some time around 2000 or so. They even caught a bunch of flack for their police being trained in paramilitary tactics in the late 80's and 90's. This set up is also one of the biggest reasons the US is heavily invested in Japan, while they were defenseless (could have limited defense forces but nothing like what would be needed to secure against China of any of it's neighbors), the US and some European countries stepped in with defense support augmentation. (an approach I think we probably should have taken with Iraq after the first gulf war while they were disarming).
The reasons for that image has largely lapsed as the requirements have run their length of time but I think Japan's constitution that was created after WWII also limit's their offensive military capabilities too. I remember some issues cropping up during the first gulf war where their constitution prohibited even sharing in the monetary expense of it.
Actually, yes it does. The courts deem customs officials may also search "any trunk or envelope, wherever found," in which they have "reasonable cause to suspect"9 there is merchandise imported contrary to law. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "any trunk or envelope" to include all international mail entering the United States. (Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606)
What is it with you and your inane lack of ability to do the slightest bit of searching for historically correct information. Now listen to me carefully, it's not hard to do a google search and you should at least attempt to find out if you are wrong before showing the world that you are.
The phrase isn't regulate or regulated. It's "well regulated" (and you can add militia to it too), it's a prefatory clause, and it has the meaning I said. It's explained competently in the DC Heller case. I suggest you spend a few minute reading it before charging at windmills again.
Actually, no he didn't. I suggest you actually read it all, including all the references and citations. Justice SCALIA,addressed Justice Stephens dissent and actually supported his rejection of those arguments with citations not only in law, but state constitutions, english laws, and understood dictionaries as well as literature at the time the amendment was created. He even compared Justice Stephens' dissent with other provisions in the constitution which specifically mention a right held by the people and pointed to the absurdity of the clause if it were interpreted the same way. This isn't a left right political decision and it isn't some activist decision. You have been wrong about almost everything else and you are wrong here too. Again, read the fucking decision- all of it.
And Justice SCALIA, addressed those words competently and even showed how incompetent that analysis is when compared to other constitutional provisions and matters of law. Like I said, read the entire fucking opinion.
He didn't do it of his own free will, and his past is competently indicative of his future. Or are you going to claim he was a liar until now that you somehow find one instance that he was pushed into politically advantageous?
Putting something in the public domain can actually be worse then using a patent. This is because the patent or tech will be limited in scope and offshoots can and most likely will be patented by others looking to cash in. With the patent, a licensing royalty or perhaps a perpetual license can be established for all derivative patents in the same light.
It's actually better to abolish patents then anything, but as long as the game stands, then having a responsible company or organization hold them can be better then just opening them up.
Precedence for that was set by Abraham Lincoln at the end of the civil war. I'm not exactly sure what your attempting to get at, but I didn't bring Habeas Corpus up. It's all pointless because the US supreme court ruled that it was used improperly and Habeas Corpus couldn't be suspended except for in specific cases which wasn't met.
As far as precedence goes in a legal sense, nothing has changed from the constitution's wording.
You realize why they used Graphite coated control rods in Chernobyl don't you?
It's because the heat caused stress on the alignment tubes and the control rods were jamming. Instead of reinforcing them or re-engineering them, the Graphite acted as a lubricant which allowed the control rods to be inserted.
Not really sure that the Valdez is a valid example. The captain was the one drinking, not the pilot navigating the vessel and the captain was in his quarters which is common on ships. Alcohol wasn't the cause, it was the scape goat.
And yet, somehow smarter then you. That's not saying much for yourself.
Nothing would change.
This isn't because I supported either Bush or Obama, it's because of what happened, who it happened to, and the reasons for it happening. Leaders need to do things that might not be popular sometimes. It wouldn't matter who did it, if the facts are the same, then it would be the same.
Now do not assume that I was defending the warantless wiretaps. I was simply keeping them in the proper context. If I was defending the actions, I would have said that I believed the office of the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief to gather battlefield intelligence no matter who was sitting in the chair just as all presidents before now has had and out to use. You certainly wouldn't expect the any administration to get a warrant to intercept or spy on invading forces operating inside the US, there is little difference between that and terrorist groups planning attacks in the US or gaining support to defeat US forces in foreign lands.
The fucking people who wrote the fourth amendment as well as the supreme court which is charged with interpreting conflicts decided it didn't cover international correspondence. The fist congress of the United States of America passed a law with almost unanimous approval creating border searches. If the people who wrote the fourth, if the people who interpret the fourth, and if everyone else who pays attention to history do not find a conflict with it, then it's more then likely that you are the one who is misunderstanding the situation. Like I said, you should pay attention to a little history. Then you won't be failing when attempting to claim others failed.
It was the same people who wrote the constitution and signed or ratified it who did this. It isn't just one administration or one iteration of a court, it's something that has been here since the very first year our country has existed and used by all administrations since Washington.
Wow, just wow. You are still fabricating and trotting that old and refuted and tired piece of shit line around. You seem like you do not pay attention to details that you do not want to see. Perhaps you should go find this thing called a book. Most counties have things called libraries with sections in the called reference and non-fiction. There you can find books under the subject of history and you can educate yourself a little so you don't look dumber the some random dumb ass.
Speaking of fail, you just showed how far you will go to fail.
The constitution doesn't contain the word regulate. It contains the word regulated and in the DC gun control case, the ruling referenced that specific definition several times. I do not understand why you haven't even read the ruling yet think you are intelligent enough to make blatantly false statements about it which was contained in the ruling. Perhaps if you hang around ignorant people, you can appear smart stating your falsehoods, but we all have at least an Average intelligence here and you will be called on it.
Oh, Moving away from facts and logic and into insults. That must be some strong position you are standing on when you need to attempt to insult someone to push it. I bet you mom is really proud of you right now.
Again with the extremely strong stand. Here is a hint, no one claims to be reading Obama's mind, all we can do is take his own words, the words of people he surrounds himself with, and form an opinion from there. So far, the facts and his own words show he is anti-gun. I looked and could not find one pro gun rights statement recorded in any newspaper, speech he's made, or campaign lit